191–200 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brain is doing great and Waymo probably at least hits close.
Is Brain doing great? From a few things people have said, it sounded like Brain was struggling so Google bought Deep Mind instead. All of the really cutting edge AI stuff has come out of Deep Mind, not Brain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Regarding the satellites, i hope the Starlink satellites will also be not visible to the naked eye This is not guaranteed at all. I read articles in the past mentioning that you will see "trains" of dozens of white dots one behind another in the sky. Do we currently see satellites in a dark summer night? Yes. So for Starlink it will be the same, except with 10 of them one behind another. I'd be happy to read more s…
> I read articles in the past mentioning that you will see "trains" of dozens of white dots one behind another in the sky. "Will" there means "right after launch, when they're in a very different orbit from final". They spread out by a very large distance, so that in the final version you'd only have line of sight to a few scattered across the sky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the days of Google Moonshots are coming to a close. In general Google hasn't been very good at shooting for the moon. They've lost their leadership and vision and all that's left is a giant advertising behemoth. Did any of their moonshots really hit the mark or even come close?
Brain is doing great and Waymo probably at least hits close.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the days of Google Moonshots are coming to a close. In general Google hasn't been very good at shooting for the moon. They've lost their leadership and vision and all that's left is a giant advertising behemoth. Did any of their moonshots really hit the mark or even come close?
That's what moonshots are though, there is a high statistical possibility that 0/100 makes it.
No Saturn V rocket ever failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet says: "The Apollo program's total cost was about $25.4 billion, about $152 billion in today's dollars." That's about Google's entire revenue for 2020. I don't think even Google could put a man on the moon at those rates. Literal moonshots are expensive.
> The internet says: "The Apollo program's total cost was about $25.4 billion, about $152 billion in today's dollars." And SpaceX will soon have the capability to do it with zillion times less. Seems like if you really want to make it possible, you can.
More like "if the hard groundwork has been done 60 years ago". It's not as if SpaceX had to quite literally invent the orbital rocket.
So after 60 years of manned spaceflight, 9 manned lunar missions, and 30 years of flying reusable crewed vehicles with a space station that has been permanently crewed since 1998 someone better do it MUCH more cheaply.
The culprit isn't just "space is hard" - it's decades of cost-plus contracts and heavy government involvement that kept costs high and results low.
Sorry to be this guy, but I am quite happy this will not happen. The sky - our sky - is not a playground for tech companies. Imposing a mesh-grid of thousands of balloons in the sky is an incredible intrusion for people around the world who have not asked for anything. It's the same for mega constellations of satellites (Starlink). Would you be willing to have a company come and put unsolicited electronic equipment i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brain is doing great and Waymo probably at least hits close.
Waymo may / will earn them some money, either they sell it to a crazy big investor, or they license the technology out to a company backed by a crazy big investor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I read articles in the past mentioning that you will see "trains" of dozens of white dots one behind another in the sky. "Will" there means "right after launch, when they're in a very different orbit from final". They spread out by a very large distance, so that in the final version you'd only have line of sight to a few scattered across the sky.
Always being able to see fast moving dots when looking at a dark sky is a significant change compared to the experience of all our ancestors. StarLink might be the first time someone has done something that affects every single society - even tribes in the Amazon and India.
Here's a study https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00374 that looks at Starlink satellites with the visor. Looks like Starlink will be visible only in rather dark areas with good viewing conditions. It's not like you're just looking up and they will bother you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Brain doing great? From a few things people have said, it sounded like Brain was struggling so Google bought Deep Mind instead. All of the really cutting edge AI stuff has come out of Deep Mind, not Brain.
They've talked about it in some cases. See https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/30/16222850/youtube-google-b...
Great work, Google Brain team!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-d...
https://xtechnews.com/2020/01/28/study-of-youtube-comments-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what moonshots are though, there is a high statistical possibility that 0/100 makes it.
Not really; a moonshot is a huge investment to advance the state of the art in something where we know it's possible . It's not a wild shot in the dark. No Saturn V rocket ever failed.